The difficulties of Arminian Methodism : a series of letters, addressed to Bishop Simpson of Pittsburgh

Front matter

| THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY. §

Frinceton, I\T. J. — Q

Y

Preface

In conversation a number of years ago with an esteemed friend, tho Rev. (now Dr.) James Linn, of Bellefonte, Pa. the preparation of this work was first suggested. Three editions having been favorably received by the Christian public, the writer has been induced by the solicitations of honored brethren, to issue in an enlarged, and he hopes, improved form, a fourth edition.

The work has not only been carefully revised, but in a great measure re-written. Every where the argument has been extended, and he trusts, strengthened, especially by quotations from leading Arminian authorities.' The Letter on "Imputed Righteousness" is entirely new, being necessary to complete the investigation of the " Difficulties of Arminian Methodism." It has been the aim of the author to make his book, as far as possible, a full and satisfactory expose of the polemical weaknesses of modern Arminianism. For this end he has gone to the fountains, to the accredited authorities of Episcopal Methodism. It has been his earnest desire to make her best and ablest writers speak for themselves. In connection with Arminian errors, he has also given a concise statement of revealed truth.

An entirely new feature in the re-construction of this work, is the review of the " Objections to Calvinism," a work highly eulogized by Bishop Simpson, of Pittsburgh. This book has been constantly by our side, its most important and objectionable characteristics have been fairly stated, and if we mistake not, fully invalidated ; and in not a few instances, we trust, logically thrown back upon its author and indorsers.

In reading these " Objections to Calvinism," and indeed in every other work from the same general source, we are constantly reminded of Bishop Horsely's advice to his clergy, in his last charge: "Take special care," said he, " in aiming your shafts at Calvinism, that yon know what Calvinism is, * * * and that you can distinguish that which belongs to our common Christianity." It is a curious circumstance, that in the " Refutation of Calvinism," one of his brother bishops, Tomliue of Lincoln, assailed "Justification by Faith," as one of the monstrous doctrines of the Calvinistic theology ! For thia

(iii)

IV PREFACE.

fact we have the authority of the " Edinburgh Encyclopedia," Art. Calvinism. Well might the late Dr. Miller, of Princeton, say, that "no system was ever more grossly misrepresented or niore foully villified," and "that it would be difficult to find a writer or speaker who has opposed it, who has fairly represented the system, or who really appeared to understand it."* We fear the modern Bishop (at Pittsburgh), and Mr. Foster, whom he indorses, must fall under the same condemnation.

According to these authors, Calvinism is justly chargeable with "unaccountable and horrid teachings," "revolting and shameful deformities," " inculcates licentiousness and recklessness, licenses crime;" "a man may become during life a devil in sin, but he cannot miss of heaven ;" " endangers all the interests of sound virtue and true religion ;" " dishonors and demonizes the God of the universe," &c. &c. Such, according to Bishop Simpson and Mr. Foster, are correct features of Calvinism ! Their book swarms with such misrepresentations as these, only worse, if that were possible ! And one of their chief authorities for these charitable statements, is the Presbyterian "Confession of Faith." Now in all Christian courtesy, we of course must Buppose that these Arminian brethren and their church, which publishes "The Objections to Calvinism," really believe their own statements. But if the picture be a true one, it is difficult to understand Mr. Wesley, when, in speaking of our Larger Catechism, which is a summary of Calvinistic doctrines, he says that, "in the main, it is a very excellent composition."! And how could he affirm, "I believe Calvin was a great instrument of God, and that he was a wise and pious man." "John Calvin was a pious, learned, sensible man. "J Could such a man have taught a system of doctrine as foul and monstrous as Atheism itself?

More than this : The Confession of Faith of our church, which Messrs. Foster and Simpson say they have demonstrably convicted of such enormities, was the work of the Westminster Assembly of Divines. AVho were the members of that Assembly ? What was their character ? Let the " Methodist Quarterly Review "$ give the answer : That Assembly included " a galaxy of illustrious persons, of unequaled brightness" — " such were the leading spirits of the body" — "stars of the first magnitude." But according to Messrs. Simpson and Foster, this "unequaled galaxy of stars" shed upon the world unequaled darkness !

* On Presbyterianisin, pp. 26, 27. t Original Sin, part 2, sec. 2.

X Works, vols. i. and ii. pp. 516, 475. § Tor October, 1848.

PREFACE. V

Again: " That famous Confession," says the same high Methodist authority, "is iu many particulars a remarkable production" — "a well written instrument" — though "most thoroughly Calvinistic." " Whoever adopts it as the formulary of his faith, though he may err as to some speculative points, will be sound in all things essential to a saving appreciation of the way of salvation." Compare this honorable testimony with the statements of Messrs. Simpson and Foster. And what have been the practical results, the fruits of this Confession ? " The influence of the labors of the Assembly," adds the same "Methodist Quarterly," "has been extensive and controlling over multitudes of the better classes of the inhabitants * * * wherever the English language is spoken. To their formularies'''' — mark this ! — " millions have owed their preservation from destructive errors, their theological knowledge, and saving sober piety." And all this from a system which, in certain of its features, "inculcates licentiousness, licenses crime, and demonizes the God of the universe!" So at least say these Armiuian brethren.

But has not this "wild vine" of Calvinistic growth and culture, often produced " the grapes of Sodom and the clusters of Gomorrah?" The " Methodist Quarterly" shall answer: "Ever since," — i. e. since the meeting of the Westminster Assembly — "it (the Confession) has exerted a most salutary influence in the world. By it the Romanizing tendency of the English Establishment has been kept in check ; its opposition to uniformity has perpetuated religious liberty, while its deeptoned orthodoxy has stood as a bulwark against the onsets of every form of seductive error." These are certainly not the clusters of Sodom!

In confirmation of these facts, the " Methodist Quarterly " next cites Scotland as "an exemplification of the practical tendency of these formularies," and quotes from the Life of Alexander Henderson what is called "a felicitous statement of the case," as follows: "These (Westminster) divines have erected a monument in almost every heart in Scotland. * * * Next to the introduction of Christianity, and the translation of the Bible into the vulgar tongue, the framing of the Confession of Faith and of the Catechism, has conferred the greatest boon on every Christian in our country." This differs slightly from the picture of Foster and Simpson !

Still further : The same Quarterly has a glowing eulogy of that distinguished Calvinist, Alexander Henderson, "who wrote the principal part of the Confession of Faith with his own hand." "He was evidently of that sort of men of which martyrs are made." " His country honors his memory as that of one of her chief benefactors 1*

VI PREFACE.

and the whole Christian world owes him a debt -of lasting gratitude." If our Anninian brethren, Foster and Simpson, are right, the Christian world must be grateful for very small favors !

Finally, says the Reviewer: "The famous Westminster Assembly, * * * in its origin, progress and end, was like a meteor bursting suddenly into being and beaming with unwonted splendor for a season, &c." "Not so, however, were its effects. Like the genial flowers and sunshine of early spring, it imparted life and strength to what had seemed utterly dead, * * * the pledge of the coming summer and the seed time of that harvest whose reaping is yet in progress." Such were, and continue to be the fruits of a system, which in several of its distinctive features, " licenses crime and endangers all the interests of sound virtue and true religion!"

And even when this Arminian Reviewer speaks of " the vexed question of decrees," it is in a tone of candor and fairness very different from that which pervades the "Objections," &c. "It may be very difficult," he says, "by the force of logic, to evade the conclusion of the Predestinarians ; it is equally difficult for them to reconcile their own views to a sense of justice and the revealed character of God. Both parties in this controversy have need to learn that some things are too high for them. If Revelation discloses truths which threaten to clash in their remote consequences, it becomes us to leave those consequences to God, nor dare to dim the glory of His name by limiting his natural attributes of knowledge aud power, &c." The allusion we suppose to be especially to Dr. Adam Clarke's theological foibles in regard to Divine Foreknowledge. This Reviewer writes in a spirit which cannot be too strongly recommended to certain persons, who, with presumptuous daring, "rush in where angels fear to tread." But if he imagines that the Calvinistic scheme "so hides the moral perfections of God, as to make him appear as an Almighty Tyrant," we can only say that in our humble judgment, the charge is altogether without foundation, and indeed may be fairly retorted upon his own system. But where there is so much that is fair and candid, so much that does honor both to the head and heart of the Reviewer, so much to evince a spirit that bows to the supremacy of truth, even when she frowns upon him — in such circumstances we cannot feel any great disposition to find fault.

From the very numerous expressions of approval which the writer has at different times received, the following are selected :

PREFACE. Vll

From the late Dr. Archibald Alexander.

" The subject has been treated in a fair and masterly manner. The argumentative part of the work is admirably conducted. The book should be widely circulated in our Church. Such a defense against the ungenerous attacks of many assailants, was called for, and will effectually subserve the promotion of evangelical truth."

From the Biblical Repertory.

" The author has proved himself to be a workman that need not be ashamed. Whoever wishes to see the objections commonly made by Arminians to the Calviuistic system fairly rolled back on their own, will find satisfaction in the perusal of this volume."

From the Rev. William Engles, D. D. Editor of " The Presbyterian." " Mr. Annan was induced to undertake this work in self-defense. * * * He has furnished a popular treatise, which cannot be easily answered ; hence his book has been assailed with great violence. But we cau see no reason for so much wrath in the temper or style of this volume. He has carried the war iuto the enemy's territory. We advise Presbyterians, when assailed by Arminians, to procure and circulate this book."

From Rev. Dr. Musgrave.

" I was rejoiced to see a new edition of ' The Difficulties of Arminian Methodism.' It was quite time the slanders aud gross misrepresentations of that denomination should be repelled and exposed. Tho author has ' used them up ' handsomely, and deserves the thanks of all who love truth, honesty, honor, and rational piety."

From Rev. Dr. Elliott, of the Western Theological Seminary. " The work is well executed. The author has presented the difficulties of the system which he assails, in a clear and forcible manner. The radical authorities which he has introduced, greatly enhance the value of the work. Those who are so fond of exhibiting the difficulties of Calvinism, will here find room for the trial of their skill in settling the difficulties of their own system. The work is cheerfully recommended to the patronage of an intelligent Christian public."

From the late Rev. Dr. Baird, Editor of the Pittsburgh Christian Herald. " It was wise to carry the war into the territory of the assailants, and this Mr. Annan has done with ability and success."

Vlll PREFACE.

From a Review in the Presbyterian.

" It is a work full of merit, from its rational exhibition of what may be called theological absurdities — a luminous exposure of the absurdities of the Arminian system. The style, from its original method, is agreeable. It includes also an able defense of the doctrine of Calvin and others. To all who can obtain the book, we say — Read."

From a Review in the Christian Herald.

" A successful development of the difficulties of the Arminian system. I know of no volume so well adapted to expose the weak points of Methodism. The style is popular and sprightly, the argument pointed and concise. The ' Difficulties of Arminian Methodism ' are strongly, fairly, yet succinctly stated. The volume is convenient, portable, neatly executed and popularly written. It is therefore well adapted to strengthen Presbyterians in their confidence in the truth of their own system, and guard them against the claims of arrogant Arminians."

Letter I. Introductory Remarks

To Bishop Simpson :

Rev. Sir — I take the liberty of addressing these Letters to you, for several reasons :

1. You have been long a preacher, and for a time were one of the editors of the Methodist Episcopal church, and are well known as a zealous defender of its faith.

2. Your ministerial brethren have elevated you to a position among the chief functionaries of their ecclesiastical system, and of course you stand upon the watch-tower as a prominent guardian of its administration.

3. In a formal " Introduction" to the work called " Objections to Calvinism," by the Rev. R. S. Foster, you have given your indorsement to the doctrinal caricature which he calls Calvinism. Thus you say, the "argumentation is strictly logical," " the book is very valuable," " well executed," and of " great merit." The numerous extracts which appear in these Letters, will furnish appropriate illustrations of this flattering notice from your pen. Suffice it for the present to say, that to every well informed Presbyterian, it must seem marvelous, that you should employ such terms in relation to such a production. But as the act is done, and as the "Objections" are published "for the Methodist Episcopal church" — as you have thus embarked your character as a theologian and a man of enlarged views, with that of

Mr. Foster, there seems to be a propriety in directing these Letters to you. These facts will also explain why, in referring to Mr. Foster's work, I couple your name with his — not only because you have indorsed his statements, but in your "Introduction" have yourself adopted some of the most offensive and injurious of them.

To illustrate my meaning: in speaking of " the subject of Predestination," which you say " has for ages engaged the attention of theologians and philosophers" — you state "the questions which arise" as follows : " Is the destiny of every human being unchangeably determined before his birth, without reference to foreseen conduct ? Has the mind a power of choice ? Can it move freely within certain specified limits ? Will the nature of its movements and choice influence its eternal happiness?" "These questions," you add, "have in some form exercised the highest powers of the human intellect;" and the obvious inference which you wish to have made, is that Calvinists or Predestinarians hold the following positions, viz. that " the eternal destiny of every man is unchangeably fixed before his birth without reference to his foreseen conduct" or character as righteous or wicked — that the mind has no power of choice — that it cannot move freely — that the nature of its movements and choice have no influence on its eternal happiness."

Such is Predestination ! Such, according to Bishop Simpson, are the doctrines held and taught by Presbyterians and other Calvinists. And the book which repeats and reiterates these impious statements, and attempts to fix them down upon Calvinistic churches, the Bishop indorses, and his sect publishes as one of " great merit!" Let the reader observe — Bishop S. does not affirm merely that these impieties have, by some Anti-Calvinists been considered as legitimate inferences from the doctrine of Predestination. That would be bad enough — but he goes much farther. These are the questions ! These are the real points which have exercised and divided the minds of " theologians and philosophers." But so far as regards the Presbyterian church, we need hardly say that no person broaching such monstrous sentiments, could be received as a member of any of our ecclesiastical bodies — and if Bishop Simpson will undertake to prove such charges against any individual minister of our communion, we pledge our word that he shall be brought to trial, and if the Bishop shall sustain the accusation, that the guilty one shall be forthwith suspended from the office.

It is no concern of ours, even though you could prove that u the Atheistical school of philosophers," " the Jewish Essenes" and " the Mohammedans," held the doctrine of Predestination, as you state it. So also it has been fashionable for Arminian disputants to charge Calvinism with being nearly allied to Stoical fate. The Greek and Roman philosophers, called Stoics, are admitted by even Arminian authors, to have been the greatest, wisest and most virtuous of all the heathens ; and their sayings are often quoted by Arminians as a confirmation of some of the most important truths of Christianity ; particularly relating to the unity and perfection of the Godhead, a future state, the duty and happiness of mankind, &c. The doctrine of Fate, as held by the Stoics, was in some respects very erroneous, though they differed among themselves. And if any of them taught the same doctrine held by others of the ancient heathen — viz. that Fate was a power which overruled and controlled both men and gods, it was of course sheer Atheism. Even Bishop Simpson will not pretend to find any thing of this sort in Calvinism. But where do we find the " philosophers and theologians" of ancient and modern times, whose sympathies and views most nearly harmonized with those of modern Arminians ? We find them among the followers of Epicurus, the father of Atheism and licentiousness — among the Sadducees, who said " that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit" — and among the Mohammedans, " one of whose 2 sects, and portions of other sects," the Bishop admits, " held the freedom of the human will," i. e. in the Arminian sense of freedom ! And last but not least, " the Jesuits," yes, " the Jesuits, who became the most indefatigable enemies of the Reformation, * * * were the advocates of (Arminian) free will !" Such is the testimony of Bishop S. himself ! Arminianism has great cause to be proud of her allies.

In such volumes as the one which you have so profusely bepraised, it is common to find Calvinism represented as " a libel upon Deity, profane, scandalous, a system of blasphemy and impiety." But if this be true, it is really wonderful that so bad a tree should bear such "good fruit." From the partisan and sectarian verdict of such men as Alexander Campbell, of Bethany, and such preachers as Rev. R. S. Foster (whom you indorse), we appeal to the enlightened judgment of such acknowledged literary tribunals as "the British Encyclopedia," which contains the following, not written by a Calvinist : " There is one remark which we think ourselves in justice bound to make. It is this — that from the earliest age down to our own days, if we consider the character of the ancient Stoics, the Jewish Essenes, the modern Calvinists and Jansenists, compared with that of their antagonists, the Epicureans, the Sadducees, the Arminians and the Jesuits, we shall find that they have excelled, in no small degree, in the practice of the most rigid and respectable virtues, and have been the highest honor to their own age, and the best models for imitation to every succeeding age." Such is the testimony of an impartial witness, a first-rate scholar.

Again : The " Edinburgh Review," which has not been suspected of a leaning toward Calvinism, says : " Who were the first formidable opponents of this doctrine (predestination) in the Church of Rome ? The Jesuits, the contrivers of courtly casuistry, and the founders of lax morality. Who, in the same church, inclined to the theology of Augustine ?

The Jansenists, the teachers and the models of austere morals."

Again : " It is a notorious and undeniable fact." remarks the Edinburgh Encyclopedia, " that wherever the doctrine and discipline of Calvin have existed and been allowed to operate, the people have been remarkable for an enlightened piety and the strictness of their moral conduct."

To the same effect, hear one of your own most distinguished ministers, Rev. Dr. Elliott, for several years editor of the " Western Christian Advocate :" — " The Presbyterians of every class," remarks Dr. E. " were prominent and even foremost, in achieving the liberties of the United States. They have been all along the leading supporters of constitution and law, and good order. They have been the pioneers of learning and sound knowledge from the highest to the lowest grade, and are now its principal supporters. The cause of morals and good order has always found them the FIRST TO aid, and among the last to retire from its support."

" The Presbyterians," adds Dr. E. " are not confounded and never will be, so long as they adhere to the Bible and to the promotion of truth and righteousness, as they have always done with more or less fidelity." " Many thousands of precious souls are annually brought to a saving knowledge of Christ by their instrumentality." Will Bishop Simpson venture to affirm that these are the lawful results of a system of impious and licentious dogmas, such as he ascribes to Calvinists ? Did Dr. Elliott regard the Presbyterian church in the light in which she is depicted by Mr. Foster ? As well inquire whether " men gather grapes of thorns and figs of thistles." As well band with the infidel and deny the truth of the inspired maxim, "By their fruits ye shall know them."

Such then are some of the benign " fruits" of a system of doctrine, the character of which is drawn in your leading tracts and other publications as follows: — "It makes f all preaching vain ;' ' it directly tends to destroy that holiness, which is the end of all the ordinances of God ;' it ' directly tends to destroy our zeal for good works ;' it has ' also a direct and manifest tendency to overthrow the whole Christian revelation ;' it represents our Saviour ' as a hypocrite, a deceiver of the people, a man void of common sincerity ;' it ' destroys all God's attributes at once : it overturns both his justice, mercy and truth : yea, it represents the most holy God as worse than the devil, as both more false, more cruel and more unjust,' as 'an omnipresent, almighty tyrant.' ' This is the blasphemy clearly contained in the horrible decree of predestination.' "

" Ye shall know the truth," said our blessed Lord, " and tlie truth shall make you free." Commence the inquiry at any point you please. Go back to the days of the celebrated Augustine of the fourth century. To him Mosheiin ascribes " the glory of having suppressed Pelagianism in its very birth." All acknowledge him to have been a Predestinarian of a high order. Did he hold " that the good and the bad actions of men were from eternity fixed by an invincible (or natural) necessity ?" No, he explicitly rejected, like modern Calvinists, such an impious dogma ! Bishop S. cannot be ignorant of the history of the Waldenses and Albigenses, who in the retired fastnesses of the Alps, preserved the truth for so many agea safe from the corruptions of Rome. Yet they were Predestinarians. So were the leading Reformers of the sixteenth century — as the creeds which they prepared abundantly testify. Contrast, too, the Arminianism and morals of Laud and his semi-popish clergy, and of Claverhouse and his dragoons — with " the austere morality and the fear of God" which pervaded all ranks of the Covenanters, and also of the army of Cromwell — as Macaulay assures us. In that singular camp, the historian tells us, " no oath was heard, no drunkenness or gambling was seen, * * * the property of the peaceable citizen and the honor of woman were held sacred," &c. These were the fruits of Calvinism ! And the lives of such moderns as Thomas Scott, Legh Richmond, Bunyan, Edward*, Whitefield, and a host of other Calvinists, all testifythat "a fountain that sends forth such streams of puritymust be a pure fountain."

Even your own " Quarterly Review," in a very unfair and unfriendly notice of certain "Lives of Calvin," admits that at Geneva " his practical discipline was of the severest cast." And one of the proofs is, " dancing and other amusements were strictly prohibited."* Yet this same Quarterly, when it wishes to glorify a certain Arminian preacher, speaks of " his opposition to dancing" in a very commendatory tone !f " Opposition to dancing" is good in an Arminian preacher, but hardly endurable in John Calvin ! Thus leaks out that harsh, intolerant, exclusive sectarism which lives and breathes throughout your church. This it is which prompts the extravagant eulogy of a certain Rev. Jesse Lee, who, as we are told by your highest authorities, near the close of the last century, abandoned " the scattered population of Virginia," " a country then very inadequately supplied with the ordinances of religion" — for what purpose ? why, to carry the (Methodist) gospel to New England, " which had always," as your Quarterly admits, "been supplied with abundance of religious teachers," but where there were no Methodists ! Such is the Apostolic zeal of pure Arminianism ! No wonder that the same Quarterly elsewhere affirms, "that the spirit of sect, a spirit of early intrusion, of facile growth and of late eradication, has without question been par too prevalent in our (Methodist) communion."J Jesse Lee, in his benevolent mission to convert the adherents of the theology of Jonathan Edwards, Pwight, Brainard and Payson, never uttered a more palpable truth than this of your " Quarterly !" No, not even when at the commencement of his " momentous message to New England," as your historian Stevens tells us,§ " he pronounced the f For January, 1850, p. 67. § Page 41.

2* remonstrance of Methodism against such Puritan doctrines as 1 infant damnation!"' Whether the spirit of Christ, or " the spirit of sect/' is the reigning impulse in such movements as this, let enlightened Christianity decide. The morals of the thing are patent to every discerning eye.

In claiming " the Lutheran church" as " strictly agreeing with the Arminian view of Predestination/' Bishop Simpson is not more successful. No Presbyterian would object to the following statements from Professor Schinucker's " Popular Theology :" " The purposes or intentions of God are of two kinds; either causative, which refer to his own intended actions : or permissive, relating to those actions which he foresees that his creatures will perform, and which he resolves not to prevent." " These purposes of God, either causative or permissive, do extend to all things." "What God thus intended (or purposed) in eternity, he actually executes in time." " The Divine providence, i. e. the execution of God's eternal purposes or intentions, extends to all things." * This, of course, includes sin. No Presbyterian could ask a clearer statement of the doctrine of his Catechism — " the decrees of God are his eternal purpose, whereby for his own glory, he hath foreordained whatsoever comes to pass." Again : " This sin (of our first parents) God was pleased, according to his wise and holy counsel, to permit, having purposed to order it to his own glory. "f In like manner, Dr. John Owen, a Calvinist of the period of the Westminster Assembly, and one of the greatest authorities and advocates of Predestination : " The decree of reprobation is the eternal purpose of God to suffer (or permit) many to sin, to leave them in their sin, and not giving them to Christ, to punish them for their sin. "J And the Catechism : " Our first parents, being left to the freedom of their own will, fell from the estate wherein they were created, by sinning against God." Q. 13. Yet this is the scheme of doctrine which Bishop Simpson

tolls the public, denies "to the mind a power of choice" — denies " that the nature of its choice influences the soul's eternal happiness ! I"

Neither will any sound Presbyterian object to Dr. Schmucker's views when he says — " The decrees of God relative to the future destiny of men, were formed in view, that is, with a full knowledge of the conduct of men, * * * as is manifest from the absolute omniscience of God." "These decrees," he adds, " were formed in view (with a full knowledge) of men's voluntary agency." So far as regards those who finally perish, our Confession expressly says, they are " passed by and ordained to wrath for their sin" — and, of course, it must have been "in view, or with full knowledge of their conduct," as Dr. Schmucker well expresses the truth. In regard to those who shall be saved, Dr. Schmucker says, " the decree of predestination to eternal life, is based on the foreseen voluntary conduct of the individuals." This expression— "a decree based on voluntary conduct" — the Calvinist would not employ in reference to the finally saved. Yet perhaps even here, the difference is rather verbal than real ; for Dr. S. adds : " Our salvation is not of works, but of grace. Yes, humble Christian ! Thy works shall follow thee, not as a ground of justification, or as satisfaction to the demands of the violated law ; for Christ and his merits are the only basis OF OUR HOPE, the only satisfaction for sin. * * * But the works of the believer shall be the measure of his future gracious reward ;" i. e. " we shall be rewarded according to our works."* It will be seen, therefore, that Dr. S. admits the true and only scriptural "ground" on which " eternal life" is based. Of course, " the decree" to bestow salvation agrees with the truth of the case, %. e. it is founded on the " only basis of our hope," in " Christ and his merits;" not on " foreseen voluntary conduct." This agrees with Calvinism, and the difference on this point seems to be merely * Popular Theology, pp. 100, 108.